alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov> To: "BAKER, RUSSELL J" <rjbaker@oppd.com> Date: 7/7/2010 3:13 PM Subject: Re: Request for Extension - Omaha Public Power District Plant IDs 04781 and 07815 Attachments: pic06558.jpg; Omaha Public Power District Request for Extension Plant IDs 04781 and 07815.pdf

Greetings,

This e-mail is a confirmation that your extension request for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Please be aware that submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date of your questionnair e unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and establishes a new date.

Sincerely,

(Embedded image moved to file: pic06558.jpg)

From: "BAKER, RUSSELL J" <rjbaker@oppd.com>

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/07/2010 03:09 PM

Subject: Request for Extension - Omaha Public Power District Plant IDs 04781 and 07815

Ms. Alicea, Please find the attached request for a 60-day extension to complete the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry Effluent Guidelines Information Collection Request for the OPPD’s North Omaha Station (Plant ID 07815) and Nebraska City Station (04781).

Thank you,

Russ Baker Environmental & Regulatory Affairs OPPD Omaha Public Power District Your Energy Partner 444 South 16th Street Mall Omaha, NE 68102-2247 Phone: 402-636-2316This e-mail contains Omaha Public Power District's confidential and proprietary information and is for use only by the intended recipient. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, this e-mail is not a contract offer, amendment, nor acceptance. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

(See attached file: Omaha Public Power District Request for Extension Plant IDs 04781 and 07815.pdf)
**DoD 4000.25-1-M**

*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP8.14. APPENDIX 8.14**

**MATERIEL RELEASE CONFIRMATION**

AP3.13-2

2

APPENDIX 3.14

AP8.14-1

APPENDIX 8.14
DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019

Change 13

AP3.6-1 APPENDIX 3.6

AP3.6. APPENDIX 3.6

INVENTORY ADJUSTMENT – INCREASE OR 

DECREASE (OWNERSHIP TRANSFER)

FIELD LEGEND

RECORD

POSITION(S) ENTRY AND INSTRUCTIONS

Document Identifier

Code

1-3 Enter DIC D8S or D9S, as appropriate.

Routing Identifier 

Code (TO)

4-6 Enter RIC of the activity to which this 

transaction is being forwarded.

Blank 7 Leave blank.

Stock or Part Number 8-22 Enter stock or part number of item being 

adjusted.

Unit of Issue 23-24 Enter UI of item.

Quantity 25-29 Enter quantity of the increase or decrease, 

preceding significant digits with zeros. 1 / 2

Document Number 30-43 Enter appropriate document number.

Suffix 44 Enter consecutive alpha codes A through Z 

when assignment of suffix codes is 

necessary.3

Blank 45-51 Leave blank.

Fund 51-53 For intra-Component use, enter appropriate 

code. For inter-Component use, leave 

blank.

Distribution 54-56 Enter distribution code if stocks are 

segregated and maintained by codes 

reflected in the distribution field; otherwise, 

leave blank.

Project 57-59 Enter project code if stocks are segregated 

and maintained by code reflected in the 

project field; otherwise, leave blank.

1See Appendix AP3 - Formats Introduction, Paragraph AP3.3.1. 

2See Appendix AP3 - Formats Introduction, Paragraph AP3.3.2.

3See Appendix AP3 - Formats Introduction, Paragraph AP3.3.3.
DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019

Change 13

AP3.6-2 APPENDIX 3.6

FIELD LEGEND

RECORD

POSITION(S) ENTRY AND INSTRUCTIONS

Blank 60-66 Leave blank.

Routing Identifier 

Code (Storage 

Activity)

67-69 Enter RIC of the storage activity at which 

item is stored.

Ownership 70 Enter ownership code reflected by RIC in 

record positions 4-6.

Supply Condition 71 Enter supply condition code of the inventory 

balance being affected.

Management 72 Enter management code; otherwise, leave 

blank.

Day of Year 73-75 Enter ordinal day of the calendar year on 

which adjustment is processed to the Single 

Manager for Conventional Ammunition 

record.

Blank 76-80 Leave blank.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 13 - 00020 - CR

DEMARCUS JERRAU MCCL AIN JOHNSON A/K/A DEMARC US JERRO MCCLAINJOHNSON APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Demarcus Jerrau Mc C lain Johnson a/k/a Demarcus Jerro Mc C lain J ohnson pled guilty to forgery by possession of a check with intent to
pass , a state jail felony

. 2 He also signed a judicial confession. The t rial court

1 See Tex. R. App . P. 47.4.

2 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21(a)

– (b), (d) (West 2011).2 placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for three years and imposed a $ 3 00 fine. Less than a year later, the State filed its second petition to proceed to adjudication , alleging three violations of the community supervis ion cond ition that he report monthly. The State later amended its second petition to add an allegation that Appellant had violated the condition of community supervision that he commit no offense

. Appellant pled true to the allegations

. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated Appellant’s guilt and sentenced him to one year’s confinement in a state jail facility, awarding credit for time served. Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel from this case and a br ief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that, in h is professional opinion, th is appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. Californi a 3 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record d emonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 4 This court afforded Appellant the opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders b rief, but he did not do so. The State likewise did not file a brief

.

3 386 U. S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

4 See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

– 11 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).3 Once an appellant’s court

- appointed co unsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , we are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if there is any arguable ground that may be raised on his beha lf. 5 Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 6 We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. 7 Consequently, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment

.

PER CURIAM
PANEL: DAUPHINOT , J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GARDNER, J. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: February 20, 2014

5 See id. at 511.

6 See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 34 6, 351 (1988).

7 See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          9,337
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  27,933
<ALLOWANCES>                                      578
<INVENTORY>                                    13,497
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               53,513
<PP&E>                                         22,805
<DEPRECIATION>                                  9,223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                102,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          30,278
<BONDS>                                        85,440
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          13,226<F2>
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (31,860)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  102,879
<SALES>                                       139,615
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              139,615
<CGS>                                         102,744
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 102,744
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  111
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              3,471
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 8,113
<INCOME-TAX>                                    3,187
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             4,926
<DISCONTINUED>                                    122
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (582)
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    4,466
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0<F1>
<FN>

<F1> "Earnings per share is not calculated in accordance with FAS No. 128"

<F2> "Preferred stock-mandatory includes preferred stock units"
</FN>


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7503

KEVIN MCDONALD,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

USP HAZELTON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:10-cv-00277-JRS)

Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 26, 2011

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin McDonald appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six 

Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. McDonald v. USP Hazelton, No. 3:10-cv-00277-JRS 

(E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2010). We deny McDonald’s motions for a 

transcript and for summary judgment. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
A15A2275.

#### ELLIOTT v. RESURGENS, P.C. et al.

(804 SE2d 696)

Decided August 28, 2017.

*Andy Clark Law, M. Andrew Clark; Eric J. Hertz, PC., Eric J. Hertz,*for appellant.

*Weathington Smith, PaulE. Weathington, C. Matthew Smith,*for appellees.

Dillard, Chief Judge.

In *Resurgens, P.C. v. Elliott,*301 Ga. 589 (800 SE2d 580) (2017), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed our previous decision in *Elliott v. Resurgens, P.C.,*336 Ga. App. 217 (782 SE2d 867) (2016), in which we reversed a jury verdict in favor of Resurgens, P.C. d/b/a Resurgens Orthopedics and Tapan K. Daftari, M.D., in Sean Elliott’s medical-malpractice action against them. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed with our conclusion that the trial court’s exclusion of certain witness testimony required reversal of the jury’s verdict and held that the judgment below should be affirmed. Accordingly, we adopt the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia as our own, and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Ellington, P. J., and Mercier, J., concur.*
Tips From Former Smokers

Jessica’s Tip/ URL :30 VCDC0653000H

SUPER: UN CONSEJO SOBRE EL HUMO DE SEGUNDA MANO 

JESSICA: Mi hijo Aden tiene asma.

SUPER: Jessica, Madre de Aden, 7

Nueva York

VEMOS A JESSICA AYUDANDO A SU HIJO A USAR UN INHALADOR

JESSICA: El humo de segunda mano le provocó ataques tan fuertes 

que lo tuve que llevar a la emergencia a internarlo varias 

noches en cuidados intensivos. Ahora, toma muchas 

medicinas.

VEMOS A ADEN TOMANDO SUS PASTILLAS CON AGUA.

PASSAMOS A VARIAS ESCENAS DE HERRAMIENTAS MEDICAS. 

VEMOS JESSICA HABLANDO A LA CAMARA. 

Mi consejo es: no le dé pena pedirle a la gente que no fume 

cerca de sus hijos.

VEMOS A ADEN SENTADO EN UNA CAMA CON UNA MASCARA DE

OXIGENO EN SU CARA

ART CARD: 4 DE CADA 10 NIÑOS EN LOS EE.UU. 

ESTÁN EXPUESTOS AL HUMO DE SEGUNDA MANO.

AVO: PARA RECIBIR

AYUDA GRATUITA, VISITE

CDC<GOV/CONSEJOS

Un mensaje del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos 

#CDCConsejos
No. 10-509.

#### Avid Identification Systems, Inc., Petitioner v. The Crystal Import Corporation, et al.

562 U.S. 1169, 131 S. Ct. 909,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 64.

178 L. Ed. 2d 804,

January 10, 2011.

Motion of Allflex U.S.A., Inc. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 603 F.3d 967.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Viking Systems, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2012 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.









|Date: August 20, 2012 |  | /s/ John Kennedy                                 
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | John KennedyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                    









|                      |    
|--------------------- | ---
|Date: August 20, 2012 | By:
|                      |
No. 10-11083.

#### Christi Lynn Johnston, Petitioner v. Texas.

565 U.S. 866, 132 S. Ct. 212,

181 L. Ed. 2d 115,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7143.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.

Same case below, 336 S.W.3d 649.
U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

March 24, 2016

Re: Amendment to Exemption 13850 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-2532.

Dear Sir or Madam;

Aether Films Inc. was issued an Exemption numbered 13850 (hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of conducting closed-set filming for the motion picture and television industry. Aether Films Inc. hereby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow 3 additional models of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions of the exemption, and also allow the use of all their UAS systems for Aerial Data Collection.

Aether Films Inc. wishes to operate three additional unmanned aerial systems (Freefly Alta 8, DJI Inspire 1 Pro and a Freefly Alta 8) under the same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the exemption.

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for the addition of 3 similar models of unmanned aerial vehicle and to allow Aerial Data Collection, Aether Filsm Inc. respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for an amendment to the Exemption.

Sincerely,

Kyle Bullington Director of Marketing and Content Strategy
Aether Films Inc.
650-455-7752

737 Bryant St., Palo Alto, CA, 94301
The Nation’s Combat Logistics Support Agency

WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

Established 1961

DoDAAD Advanced 

Search

DoDAAD Team

March 02, 2022
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

Advanced Search

Enhanced Defense Automatic 

Addressing System Inquiry 

(eDAASINQ)

DoDAAD Advance Search 2
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

The search demoed today 

will work for RIC, DoDAAC 

and MAPAC. For this demo 

the focus will be on the 

DoDAAC.

Navigation Page
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

There are two types of 

wildcard searches available:

- Percent sign '%' is for any 

number of characters 

- Underscore for a single 

character.

Each wildcard is used for a 

different purpose. Our first 

example uses the 

underscore to find all DCMA 

records. Here we have 

entered “S____A”

Wildcard Search - Underscore
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

The query found 106 records 

that begin with “S” and end 

with “A”. 

Wildcard Search - Underscore
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

To highlight the difference 

between underscore and 

percent sign, this is a similar 

query with “S%A”

Wildcard Search – Percent Sign
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

Using “S%A” the query 

found 574 records. The 

count increase because this 

query returned all records 

that begin with “S” and 

contain an “A” within the 

DoDAAC. The position of 

the “A” is not relevant. 

Wildcard Search – Percent Sign
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

Query beginning with fixed 

characters followed by the 

percent sign only returns 

results that contain those 

character in the first position.

“Begin with”
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

940 record begin with “FA”

“Begins with”
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

This time the percent sign is 

before “FA”

“Contains”
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

With the percent sign before 

“FA” the query return 1,528. 

The query found the same 

940 records found as the 

first search, plus an 

additional 588 records with 

FA in other positions.

“Contains”
WARFIGHTER ALWAYS WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

Questions?

12
#### Kazakhstan Investment Fund Limited, Appellant, v Gerard Manolovici, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 324]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered October 3, 2002, which denied plaintiffs motion to amend its complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*250Plaintiffs motion to amend its complaint was properly denied since its complaint had been dismissed on a prior motion as time-barred and there was, accordingly, nothing left before the court to amend *(see Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Assoc. v Kadem Capital Mgt.,*306 AD2d 155 [2003]). In any event, plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint, although containing differently named causes, relies on essentially the same allegations that the motion court and this Court, in affirming the complaint’s dismissal (306 AD2d 36 [2003]), found insufficient to state timely claims for relief *(see Gottfried v Gottfried,*269 App Div 413, 422 [1945]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Sullivan, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 51713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20470]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE:  Wednesday, August 21, 2013, 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

PLACE:  Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS:  Commission Meeting--Open to the Public

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED Decisional Matter: Bassinets and Cradles--
Final Rule.
    A live Webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/webcast.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: August 16, 2013.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-20470 Filed 8-19-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18761]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 11Ac1-4, SEC File No. 270-405, OMB Control No. 3235-0462

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Sec. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 11Ac1-4 (17 CFR Sec. 240.11Ac1-4) under the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 requires specialists and market makers to publicly 
display a customer limit order when that limit order is priced superior 
to the quote that is currently being displayed by the specialist or 
market maker. Customer limit orders that match the bid or offer being 
displayed by the specialist or market maker must also be displayed if 
the limit order price matches the national best bid or offer. It is 
estimated that approximately 580 broker and dealer respondents incur an 
average burden of 5,684 hours per year to comply with this rule.
    Rule 11Ac1-4 does not contain record retention requirements. 
Compliance with the rule is mandatory. Responses are not confidential. 
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on respondents, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. 
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in 
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Direct your written comments to Michael E. Bartell, Associate 
Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and 
Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549.

    Dated: July 7, 1998.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18761 Filed 7-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
No. 10-10781.

#### John E. Winfield, Petitioner v. Don Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.

565 U.S. 849, 132 S. Ct. 171,

181 L. Ed. 2d 83,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6374.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.
No. 10-10655.

#### Anthony Jackson, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 843, 132 S. Ct. 156,

181 L. Ed. 2d 71,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6300.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.